On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:04 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Leif Sawyer <lsaw...@gci.com> wrote: > >> The boundaries at /60, /56, and /48 have all been discussed. If one is >> more favorable than >> the other, and you would like to see the proposal edited to use that one, >> we will certainly >> take that under advisory. >> > > Hi Leif, > > IMHO, IPv6 /48 = IPv4 /24. Since we require SWIP for IPv4 /24s, we should > require it for IPv6 /48s. > > I'd be comfortable with "more than a /56" and "more than a /60." I prefer > "more than a /56." > > I would oppose "/60 or more" or "/56 or more" because I believe that would > encourage ISPs to engage in unhealthy assignment practices to avoid SWIP > reporting, such as assigning /64s, /61s and /57s. > +1 -Scott
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
